Thanks VR-Zone for the image!

IDF 2011 ended on last Thursday but there is still lots of data showing up because sites are processing the data they have gathered. VR-Zone is now reporting that Ivy Bridge's GPU will support resolutions of up to 4096x4096 (commonly referred as 4Kx4K). We took a deeper look at the IB GPU in our Ivy Bridge Architecture piece, but we missed this upgrade. Sandy Bridge's GPU supports only resolutions of up to 2560x1600, so this is a huge jump since 4Kx4K has over four times more pixels. 

It's unlikely that we will see any 4Kx4K displays though, given that 16:9 is the standard nowadays (some higher-end are 16:10 though). That suggests a resolution of 4096x2304, which actually makes more sense given the bandwidth limitations. 4096x4096 at 60Hz with 24-bit color would require a bandwidth of roughly 36Gb/s, more than any of the current display interfaces supports (DisplayPort 1.2 is the king at 21.6Gb/s). 4096x2304 requires only ~20.2Gb/s, and that DP 1.2 can easily provide. 4096x4096 should, however, work with DP 1.2 by lowering the refresh rate to e.g. 30Hz, which would reduce the required bandwidth to be within DisplayPort's range. 

Displays with +2560x1600 resolution are very rare and expensive at the moment though. Back in June, EIZO announced a 36" monitor with resolution of 4096x2160, with a whopping price tag of $36,000 (yes, that is three zeros). However, considering that 10.1" tablets with 2560x1600 will soon be reality, it sounds likely that displays with 4096x2XXX resolution will soon be available at reasonable price points too. 

Source: VR-Zone

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • overzealot - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    The TNT2 had a max texture size of 2048x2048. The Voodoo3 had a max texture size of 256x256, and a max pixel depth of 16bit.
    It was well behind the feature curve.
  • overzealot - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    Forgot, also didn't have Hardware TnL. Not that hardware was always faster, but you couldn't play games that required it. Kind of a deal-breaker for me.
  • mac2j - Monday, September 19, 2011 - link

    I've been surprised and dissapointed at how stuck we seem to be at 1080p.

    I keep waiting for some LCD manufacturer to at least start pitching 1600p or 1440p even if its just as a gimmick but so far nada.

    new marginally better 3D blah blah blah... better internet streaming blah blah blah ... more Facebook features no one gives a ^&*^* about ... who seriously uses Facebook on their TV?
  • Filiprino - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    It sucks how manufacturers add so much idiotic things to their TV sets when you only want good picture quality and high TV signal reception sensivity.
    Of course those add ons are crap and don't live up to their supposed purpose.
  • Klimax - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    NIce. But first I'd need some good 4:3 display...
    (16:9 won't fit due to limited space of same resolution)
  • OBLAMA2009 - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    when are there going to be monitors with these resolutions? are those anywhere near being available
  • tipoo - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    Probably no time soon for consumers. Medical displays often have this resolution though. I think the bigger news is that IB will support three monitors.
  • Spivonious - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    That's what high-end 1080i plasmas cost back in the day. Once TV starts broadcasting 4k video, prices on the TVs will come down.
  • Darkstone - Tuesday, September 20, 2011 - link

    The samsung 2560*1600 display actually uses RGBW as pixel layout, counting every pixel rather than three at a time. The actual resolution is 1280*800x4, which is not really that impressive: only 33% more sub-pixels than what is currently in the asus transformer and zero percent more information you can fit on screen.

    Yea, marketing. Lets market 768p as 1366*2304 sub-pixels... that's what samsung does.
  • anirudhs - Thursday, September 22, 2011 - link

    I use one monitor landscape @1920x1200 and 2nd monitor portrait @1200x1920. If both monitors are cable of 4096x2304, I can still use both monitors with the Ivy Bridge. Its not the question of whether the display can support 4096x4096, rather its how you want to orient your screen to suit your task.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now